Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 687271.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 687271.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Full Text

1,750 chars
as the trial court, considering the facts and all reasonable inferences from the

facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.36 "Summary judgment is
properly granted if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine

issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment

as a matter of law."37

36 Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prairie Cmtv. Council, 146
Wn.2d 370, 381, 46 P.3d 789 (2002).
37 Phillips v. King County, 136 Wn.2d 946, 956, 968 P.2d 871 (1998); CR
56(c).
-14-
             

No. 68727-1-I (consol. with
No. 68927-4-1)7 15

After hearing oral argument on 12 separate occasions and reviewing

pleadings, motions, memoranda, declarations, and affidavits from both parties,

the trial court found that Feigenbaum was in breach of the lease for nonpayment

of rent. The court found that Hall did not breach or default on any of his

obligations under the lease and that he mitigated damages by reletting the

premises.

Feigenbaum conceded to the court that he had not complied with the

court's order to deposit future rent into the court's registry. In spite of over two

years of litigation, Feigenbaum raised no genuine issue of any material fact

regarding his unlawful detainer of the premises and breach of the lease. We hold

that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to Hall.

The trial court awarded Hall $136,807.29, comprised of $108,969.00 for

rent due under the lease, $21,016.00 for the deficiency between Feigenbaum's

rent and the rent paid by the new lessee during the balance of Feigenbaum's